The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

So, where is the Leica S2?

Forrest Black

New member
..

A digital back can do more than an S2 because it can be used on different platforms, its sensor is easier to clean, its tethering is proven and it packs into a small pouch for carrying on a plane. Being the most expensive part of your kit, it leaves $$$ for a spare body or an additional camera, say a DSLR. It also has a solid resell/ trade-in value when the time comes to change...

Yair
I am not so sure about the solid resale value of digital backs. How much was the Aptus22 when it was launched and how much is its value today? Based on my back-of-the-envelope calculations, it is about a $20 000.00 loss between 2005 and 2009. That makes about $5000 each year.

OK, here comes that "what about the savings on film and processing" bit. I may make more shots shooting digitally but the number of keepers I get remain the same. In other words, I may choose to press the shutter more often with digital but my clients require the same number of shots as before. So in terms of the number of shots I have to deliver, shooting film makes it cheaper as I don't see the need to increase my shutter count by 100 times if I know what I am doing.

As an aside, the "look how much I am saving on film and processing" is the biggest red herring justification for shooting digitally because many times photographers forget that they do NOT have to press the shutter so many times more to get the shot they want. You see a scatter-shot approach ironically in those who do not know their craft and for this crowd, shooting digitally may make it cheaper.

The illogical conclusion is to hit the shutter one million times or more and then calculate the equivalent cost in film and processing to justify an expensive digital back purchase. Just because you can does not mean you must. Shooting more frames does not make one a better photographer. It just makes one appear more industrious.
 

yaya

Active member
I am not so sure about the solid resale value of digital backs. How much was the Aptus22 when it was launched and how much is its value today? Based on my back-of-the-envelope calculations, it is about a $20 000.00 loss between 2005 and 2009. That makes about $5000 each year.
There are many ways to juggle the numbers....in some countries the back can be written off after 3 years so selling it for $10K will show a clean $10K profit...
When trading an Aptus 22 now for a new Aptus-II 10 it is worth approx. $15K which is more than its resale value and again it can be already written off...so the actual cost of the new back is less than $9K...

OK, here comes that "what about the savings on film and processing" bit. I may make more shots shooting digitally but the number of keepers I get remain the same. In other words, I may choose to press the shutter more often with digital but my clients require the same number of shots as before. So in terms of the number of shots I have to deliver, shooting film makes it cheaper as I don't see the need to increase my shutter count by 100 times if I know what I am doing.

As an aside, the "look how much I am saving on film and processing" is the biggest red herring justification for shooting digitally because many times photographers forget that they do NOT have to press the shutter so many times more to get the shot they want. You see a scatter-shot approach ironically in those who do not know their craft and for this crowd, shooting digitally may make it cheaper.

The illogical conclusion is to hit the shutter one million times or more and then calculate the equivalent cost in film and processing to justify an expensive digital back purchase. Just because you can does not mean you must. Shooting more frames does not make one a better photographer. It just makes one appear more industrious.
In a perfect world you would hit the shutter x number of times for an X number of keepers, be it digital or film (with film it'll be a bit more since you cannot deliver a polaroid)

Again there are many ways to look at it and you also have to look at the scanning/ retouching time+costs and who carries them.

But anyway the S2 is digital so shooting film on it (or with its lenses) is not an option. Using your H1/ AFD/ RZ/ AFi/ 500CM/ Contax/ ETRSi/ 680 lenses with film/ however, still is...

Yair
 

fotografz

Well-known member
To cut to the chase ... who wouldn't love to have a 37 meg near Medium Format sensored focal/leaf shutter camera with Leica quality optics sitting in their gear vault? I sure the heck would. :thumbs:

But as a supplement, not a replacement. It replaces nothing. It can't replace my Nikon/Sony for what I use that gear for. And it can't replace my MFD system which I can use on multiple platforms including my full featured T/S Rollei Xact2 sporting Digital APO lenses that are second to none. That's not to say that there aren't specialist out there for whom this system will do all they need done. I'm not one of them. And many so called "specialists" are altering their business plan to diversify in order to survive ... so neither are they. "Leica" and "Survival" is a financial non sequitur wrapped in a conundrum.

So, I go all the way back to my original lament ... Leica is launching this wonderful supplemental system in the midst of the most crippling financial disaster in my lifetime. 2 years ago, heck maybe even one year ago, I would have already pre-ordered this entire system. Now, priorities have seriously shifted, and not just for me ... trust me on that.

I had money earmarked for gear purchases that would have easily covered the S2 and 4 lenses even at an aggressive price point. I used much of it to buy out my Volvo CX90 lease, part of slimming down my monthly overhead nut.

If money losens up in my case, then the competition for this S2 system would be a 60 meg MFDSLR to replace my 39 meg one ... which would provide a bit more sensor area for use on the view camera along with even more resolution.

However, as the economy seems to be getting worse, my next back will most likely be 100 meg :ROTFL:
 

Bob

Administrator
Staff member
100 meg,
I sort of feel that way too, if there are any back makers to buy it from..
We live in challenging times.
-bob
 

fotografz

Well-known member
I am not so sure about the solid resale value of digital backs. How much was the Aptus22 when it was launched and how much is its value today? Based on my back-of-the-envelope calculations, it is about a $20 000.00 loss between 2005 and 2009. That makes about $5000 each year.

OK, here comes that "what about the savings on film and processing" bit. I may make more shots shooting digitally but the number of keepers I get remain the same. In other words, I may choose to press the shutter more often with digital but my clients require the same number of shots as before. So in terms of the number of shots I have to deliver, shooting film makes it cheaper as I don't see the need to increase my shutter count by 100 times if I know what I am doing.

As an aside, the "look how much I am saving on film and processing" is the biggest red herring justification for shooting digitally because many times photographers forget that they do NOT have to press the shutter so many times more to get the shot they want. You see a scatter-shot approach ironically in those who do not know their craft and for this crowd, shooting digitally may make it cheaper.

The illogical conclusion is to hit the shutter one million times or more and then calculate the equivalent cost in film and processing to justify an expensive digital back purchase. Just because you can does not mean you must. Shooting more frames does not make one a better photographer. It just makes one appear more industrious.
IMO, film left the equation years ago for most professional work (except in some special cases). No one wants to pay for film and processing plus upwards of $70 a scan ... which for any type of volumn work is out of the question. 100 shots for a catalog can add up to 5 to 7K alone. Not to mention that clients want the stuff NOW ... and sure the hell aren't interested at all in re-shoots!

Instead, like many pro shooters, we charge a digital capture fee which goes toward paying for the gear. Even at a measley $300. per day, a $30K MFD camera is paid for in 100 jobs ... spread that out over a 3 year upgrade cycle and it comes to about 34 or so days of rental fees a year. And that's not even factoring in that the back isn't completely worthless at the end of the 3 years. So, considering that resale conservatively, you probably only need 22 or 23 rental days a year ... or about two a month on average. If business slows down then the upgrade cycle extends to 4 years. ROI baby, ROI !!!!
 

fotografz

Well-known member
100 meg,
I sort of feel that way too, if there are any back makers to buy it from..
We live in challenging times.
-bob
Well BOB, right now a 100 meg back is way over the horizon ... right where I like it to be since I wouldn't buy it if it did exist ... any more than the S2 even if it was available tomorrow morning.

Hopefully, Mr. 100 Meg Solution is way out there in the future walking lock step with Mr. Economic Recovery. ;)
 

ptomsu

Workshop Member
When I want really GREAT IQ, I'll take 8x10inch Velvia with over 500MP real resolution... ;-)
VERY TRUE!!!!

This is actually one step I am considering, buying now a cheap Hasselbald for film with some cheap but great glass (should be between (5k - 7k$) and use my Flextight X5 to do high resolution scans.

This will bring highest resolution, low addiional investment and great satisfaction :angel:

And then in 4-5 years we will see where digital MF has arrived. And what can then be bought at a reasonably cheap price - say 50MP for 3k$ :thumbup:
 

ptomsu

Workshop Member
That's harsh especially the "Leica nutz" bit but I gotta agree with you, Pete.

Does the market for bragging rights even exists today? The stock market pretty much wiped it out.

The S2 is either going to be all things to all people or neither fish nor fowl. Somehow, I fear that it is the latter.
Although I am basically a big Leica fan, I could not agree more with your words!
 

Ben Rubinstein

Active member
What Marc says is right though, instead of charging the client film and processing, you're charging 'Digital Capture Fee' to cover the depreciation talked about here and also your post time. There shouldn't be any 'loss' other than bad business practice discounting the value of said depreciation and post time. For a business, depreciation is tax deductable which together with the digital capture fee should negate any supposed loss. Oh, and by the time you've paid off your equipment, it's still earning you that capture fee which was not the case with film. Now some will say, 'yeah but the digital upgrade cycle' forgetting that their equipment still has resale or trade in value even once it's fully paid off. My present gear still has some of my very first camera (AE-1) embedded in it, however minute, the investment is still paying for itself long after the clients paid for it in the first place.

What muddies the water is when expensive upgrades are made for equipment that cannot be justified by current charges to the client and the client is not paying for your equipment within the framework of a pricing structure. At that point the depreciation is going to hit hard. I think that this could be very true at present given the plateu reached in the high end equipment upgrade cycle. Unless Marc's clients are paying more for a 100 megapixel back, why not just stick with his H3D-39? If they were demanding higher quality but not paying more then that would be something else, a problem with the industry (it is), if they are doing neither then why would he bother?

Of course this doesn't help amatuers but then it becomes comparible to high end cars which lose about the same amount and the depreciation is rarely offset against tax (outside of company cars of course). When you buy the Merc you know what it will be worth in 3 years time, why should a Phase P45+ or whatever be any different? It's a luxury toy and those come at a staggering price and they depreciate horribly fast.
 
Last edited:

yaya

Active member
What Marc says is right though, instead of charging the client film and processing, you're charging 'Digital Capture Fee' to cover the depreciation talked about here and also your post time. There shouldn't be any 'loss' other than bad business practice discounting the value of said depreciation and post time. For a business depreciation is tax deductable which together with the digital capture fee should negate any supposed loss. Oh, and by the time you've paid off your equipment, it's still earning you that capture fee which was not the case with film. Now some will say, 'yeah but the digital upgrade cycle' forgetting that their equipment still has resale or trade in value even once it's fully paid off. My present gear still has some of my very first camera (AE-1) embedded in it...
Thanks Ben, I was trying to say the same things without mentioning "bad business practice";)
 

Forrest Black

New member
Oh well, thanks for the lesson in good business practice, Yair. Due to my lack of good business practice, I shall stay with film for anything larger than 24mmx36mm. The equipment is paid for and my clients don't mind.
 

yaya

Active member
Oh well, thanks for the lesson in good business practice, Yair. Due to my lack of good business practice, I shall stay with film for anything larger than 24mmx36mm. The equipment is paid for and my clients don't mind.
Forrest I'm glad to hear that this model works for you and I know more than one (successful) photographer who will support this model.

Still the subject in hand was the S2 and not film, mind you...

Yair
 

fotografz

Well-known member
Oh well, thanks for the lesson in good business practice, Yair. Due to my lack of good business practice, I shall stay with film for anything larger than 24mmx36mm. The equipment is paid for and my clients don't mind.
Well, the theory of good business practice is all well and good ... providing you have the business rolling in at the rate you need to pay for the expensive gear.

At this particular time, and economic environment, Forrest could be considered a business "genius". The difference between film and digital right NOW is that the digital costs were paid up front with the prospect of fees to help pay for it over 3 years or so. With film, the capture expenses are incurred ONLY when you have work that pays for it.

BIG FREAKING DIFFERENCE.

To elaborate, right now in this economic climate if I could have back the over-all 250K investment in my photographic business, and just shot weddings with pair of D700s and a few zooms and kept my F6, Hassey 203FE, and 949 Imacon for personal film work, I'd do it in a NY heatbeat. I'd bet I'm not alone in this perspective :cry:
 
Last edited:

Stuart Richardson

Active member
Yes, the amount I use my digital back is not nearly as high as I expected...it is just too slow to shoot people with natural light here. ISO 25 (marked as 50) and a f/4 lens does not cut it in the arctic light. Luckily I got it for comparatively little and already had the lenses, but still I am kicking myself since I shot basically everything between September and today with either a D3 or a 203FE.
 

Stuart Richardson

Active member
54LV -- I am not sure if it is just my particular back, but when exposed according to a meter or the camera meter, the resulting file is 1 full stop (or more) underexposed, so the ISO 50 is actually 25. It has beautiful results when properly exposed, but ISO 25 in daylight here is just too slow to get a good exposure. If you crank up the ISO, then the noise makes it such that there is not much point shooting a medium format back, as 35mm digital results in much cleaner files.

Don't get me wrong, it has great files when there is enough light, but more often then not I just leave it home because the extra 2 stops in ISO 100 film or the extra 3-6 stops on the D3 just make them so much more useful. Shooting someone at f/4 and 1/8th is a lot different than shooting at f/2.8 and 1/250th.
 

dfarkas

Workshop Member
I'll be heading over to the Leica booth today and spending a lot of quality time with the S2. This afternoon I have a private meeting with the product manager. Be sure to check my blog later today for updates.

If you have a question or anything you want me to check out, just leave a comment on the blog or send me a PM here. I'll be receiving those comments on my BlackBerry.

David
 
Top